On 24 February 2017 at 18:04, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 February 2017 at 17:11, Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:48:46PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I had a look at implementing this for ARM, and ran into problems >>> because of how we've done '-cpu host'. For us the "host" CPU >>> type is registered dynamically when kvm_init() is called, >>> because (a) it only exists if -enable-kvm and (b) it probes >>> the kernel to find out what's available. So I could easily >>> add 'max' in the same place; but then where should I add the >>> type definition of 'max' for the non-KVM case? >> >> I recommend registering the type unconditionally, moving >> KVM-specific initialization to ->instance_init() and/or >> ->realize() (being careful to make instance_init() not crash if >> KVM is disabled), and make ->realize() fail if KVM is disabled. >> IIRC, we did exactly that on x86 a while ago. > > Thanks, sounds reasonable. Also sounds like more rework than > I want to try to write, test and cram into QEMU before freeze > deadline on Tuesday, so I guess we'll have to wait til after > 2.9; a pity, but can't be helped.
I remembered this week that I'd completely forgotten that we should have a go at "cpu max" for ARM in the 2.10 cycle. Maybe for 2.11 :-) thanks -- PMM
